D&D 5E Character Options

[ExploderWizard]

The concept was that some weapons were better/worse versus different types of armour. Chainmail was thought to be better than plate against arrows, for example.

It wasn't. The long bow had a +1AC adjustment vs. chain and a 0 AC adjustment vs. plate.

The trouble is that this is not how the table worked! You cross-referenced the weapon you were using, not against the type of armour your target was wearing, but against the target's base AC! Different armour types could have the same base AC, and IIRC using a shield added to that base AC.

Check the note on weapon types "to hit" adjustment in the AD&D DMG page 28. There it clarifies that these adjustments are for specific types of armor rather than armor class.

Although it was a cool idea, the actual table wasn't fit for purpose.

It was far too much of a pain in the rear to be very useful in play for certain.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Fair enough! I think a realistic assessment would be that while the concept of dual-classing has been around since 1e, it wasn't really used widely.

Do SSI Gold Box games count? I used dual-classing extensively in Secret of the Silver Blades to get armored mages.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Do SSI Gold Box games count? I used dual-classing extensively in Secret of the Silver Blades to get armored mages.

Dual-classing was pretty much the way to go in those games. In Pool of Radiance you just went with single-classed human or demi-human (multiclassed if you wanted), but by the second game (Curse of the Azure Bonds) playing a demi-human was a bad idea unless you were a multiclass thief. I just played humans and "refluffed" them to represent my demi-humans from the first game.

Though I will note that armored mages couldn't cast spells in armor--but shields were fair game. Instead of armor, you just ended up getting Bracers of AC X for them to use.

I still haven't finished Pools of Darkness. I've heard it is the best of them, but being at such a high level means you're constantly fighting absurd numbers of high level opponents and monsters, which just breaks any sort of believability for me. I think that's a common objection I have to D&D video games. I just can't believe the sequels where you are at levels 20+ with an endless stream of appropriately leveled foes.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Dual-classing was pretty much the way to go in those games. In Pool of Radiance you just went with single-classed human or demi-human (multiclassed if you wanted), but by the second game (Curse of the Azure Bonds) playing a demi-human was a bad idea unless you were a multiclass thief. I just played humans and "refluffed" them to represent my demi-humans from the first game.

Though I will note that armored mages couldn't cast spells in armor--but shields were fair game. Instead of armor, you just ended up getting Bracers of AC X for them to use.

I'm 90% confident Ranger/MUs could cast MU spells in armor, if the Ranger component was high enough level to get MU spells. That was the main attraction of dual-classing.

I agree that endless hordes of high-level foes is icky. One thing I like about 5E is that you can get a similar experience at high level, without staining believability, due to bounded accuracy. Endless hordes of ogres and CR 5 air elementals are still a threat that must be honored even at level 20.

 

[Wik]

Ultimately, what this all comes down to is simple:

Even in a game where multi-classing and dual-classing were CORE to the rules of the game, it seems a majority of people didn't use it, or didn't understand it. Nowadays, in a game where multi-classing is NOT core to the game, but an option, and there's still a boatload of disagreement on whether they should be used.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ultimately, what this all comes down to is simple:

Even in a game where multi-classing and dual-classing were CORE to the rules of the game, it seems a majority of people didn't use it, or didn't understand it.

Multi-classing was very commonly used in classic D&D - at low level. At higher levels, when you started to pay the price for it, it might have run into issues of people 'not understanding' it (trying to weasel out of the downside, to be cynical). Dual-classing ("The Character with Two Classes," iirc), OTOH, was pretty obscure, not exactly 'core.'

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

To be more specific, the problem with multiclassing was the problem with demihumans in classic (1e and OD&D) D&D. IIRC, there were harsh level limits on all classes, for all demihumans, with the exception of Thief (in 1e, you were just screwed in OD&D) - Assassin for 1/2 Orc.

Nod. Balancing across levels or whole campaigns, or 'spotlight' balance, or whatever you want to call it. The idea was that non/demi-humans would be awesome at low levels and screwed later, while humans would get the reverse treatment.

This meant that if you multiclassed, you had to take thief as one of them if you wanted to advance. And then when you maxxed out in you other class, you still had to keep giving 1/2 or 2/3 of your XP to class(es) you weren't able to advance in. And given the XP tables....

The exp tables meant you lagged a level or two if your exp was split like that (especially given that Thief was the fastest-advancing class). At high level, when the exp tables had maxed out, your only-advancing-in-Thief non-/demi- human might lag by more, but it's not like being a few levels higher in Thief would make him that much better, at that point, anyway.